You think misogynists would stop being misogynistic? That’s an interesting take. The history books all disagree with you. So, let’s take a similar issue with race…
Black Lives Matter. That’s about equality. The anti-BLM slogan is All Lives Matter, which is typically used by white nationalists or people supporting cops who kill black guys for nothing. In other words, generalization is a tool to distract from the real problems that persecuted groups really face. Do we need more proof?
Now, maybe you want to say we should fight all kinds of discrimination, became they are connected. That brings up intersectionality. It’s a fascinating topic. Is that what you want to discuss? … Somehow I feel like you won’t, because you don’t want to talk about the problems themselves, but simply to shoot the messenger. But I could be mistaken about your motives. If so, my apologies.
Also, you proposed something easy to address. What if we got rid of “feminism” as a term. What then? Actually, the history books contain the answer. The word was used in current meaning as early as 1872. So, what was it like for women up to 1871? If the word itself were the issue, then life should have been great, right? … And of course it wasn’t… What we saw in the U.S. was that women’s rights shifted a lot in the 1960s and later, around the time of the Civil Rights Movement. Imagine that! People fought both racism and sexism and good things happened. All while using terminology you would consider ripe for criticism.
I feel like you’re misinterpreting my point. I’m saying that optics matter in social movements. You can’t expect society to go out of its to understand the nuances behind your slogans and terms, you have to do the work to find slogans that conveys your messages in ways that society understands and accepts. This is a vital part of activism, and small changes can yield in big results. If the goal is to advance the cause then this should be a no brainer move.
You make the argument that a change in optics implies erasing the original message or adopting or that anybody criticizing bad optics is engaging in bad faith. However both of these things are not true. Let’s take the Black Lives Matter slogan that you brought up as an exmaple. You seem to believe that there’s a dichotomy in slogans to choose from, either it’s “Black Lives Matter” or “All Lives Matter”. However, this dichotomy is false. There’s obviously many more options.
One of the primary criticisms of the BLM slogan is that it’s too vague on it’s meaning. A lot of people, regardless of your opinions on their motivations, believe that this slogan implies that other people’s lives matter less or that black lives matter more. To you it may seem obvious what it means, but the people who bring up this criticism do have a valid point as evidence by all the opposition to it. If your movement is getting nonstop criticism about the language it uses, then that’s a strong indicator that there’s an inconsistency in the movement’s optics.
Therefore it would be wise to examine where those might be and make adjustments. In this case, the BLM movement doesn’t need to adopt the All Lives Matter slogan because that’s also flawed for all the reasons you’ve brought up, but they could do something simple like “Black Lives Matter Too”. That’s all it takes to clarify the meaning and kill the criticisms about intent behind the term. Will this stop racists from being racist? No, but it does give solidify the movement’s position. The truth is that there a lot of people who associate or disassociate with movements over things like this, and their support could be the difference between real change and no change. The idea here isn’t to win over the racists, but the people who are hesitant to support a movement even if they agree with the cause.
It’s something that’s simple yet effective. If a movements cares more about the preservation of bad optics over the advancement of its cause, then where does its values lie? Keep in mind, movements that are too stubborn and rigid to adapt will be fizzle out and be left behind in favor of ones that do.
The criticisms remain valid regardless of your opinion on the people who say them. Ultimately optics do matter in any social movement, and quite a lot. If feminism wants to be perceived as an egalitarian movement, then it has to brand itself as such. It’s slogans, terminology, mentality, and the behavior of its supporters have to adjust to reflect a true adaptation of this principle. Otherwise, it’ll remain a movement that will be perceived as one that is solely focused on the advancement of women in a society irrespective of the status of men.
The current position is just inconsistent from an optics perspective. Either feminism is synonymous with egalitarianism and it adapts to reflect that or it remains as it is and gets viewed as a separate movement. I’m of the opinion that the direction the movement should take should depend on the society its in, but I digress. The point is you can’t have it both ways. As long as that inconsistency exists, it will always be pointed and criticized by people.
I been thinking about this kind thing recently. In Brazil (To be more precise in the state of Bahia which I live) there has been a spike on femicide which bugged me because of the term, "What is the difference between this and homicide of women and the answer i found is: Femicide is the killing of women BECAUSE they are women. It’s an specification of the crime. So I think the same thing can be said about feminism: It is a fight for equality of gender focused ONLY in women. It does not make it less than true equality, but the terminology make it become an idea/movement, just like socialism and capitalism (Cold war for example).
References (Translation is available with your right click)
I mean your line of thought is fine if you accept the premise that feminism is a movement focused primarily on the advancement of women in a society regardless of the status of men, even if the goal is equality. However, the thing that’s being criticized here is the people who claim that feminism is synonymous with egalitarianism. As in feminism is also a movement for the advancement of men. However, this is an inconsistent position because the language and messaging used by the movement contradicts this notion.
It’s a valid point though. A simple change in terminology and messaging is literally all it would take for these types of criticisms to go away.
If the terminology and messaging change, then the attacks against it will change to keep pace.
You think misogynists would stop being misogynistic? That’s an interesting take. The history books all disagree with you. So, let’s take a similar issue with race…
Black Lives Matter. That’s about equality. The anti-BLM slogan is All Lives Matter, which is typically used by white nationalists or people supporting cops who kill black guys for nothing. In other words, generalization is a tool to distract from the real problems that persecuted groups really face. Do we need more proof?
Now, maybe you want to say we should fight all kinds of discrimination, became they are connected. That brings up intersectionality. It’s a fascinating topic. Is that what you want to discuss? … Somehow I feel like you won’t, because you don’t want to talk about the problems themselves, but simply to shoot the messenger. But I could be mistaken about your motives. If so, my apologies.
Also, you proposed something easy to address. What if we got rid of “feminism” as a term. What then? Actually, the history books contain the answer. The word was used in current meaning as early as 1872. So, what was it like for women up to 1871? If the word itself were the issue, then life should have been great, right? … And of course it wasn’t… What we saw in the U.S. was that women’s rights shifted a lot in the 1960s and later, around the time of the Civil Rights Movement. Imagine that! People fought both racism and sexism and good things happened. All while using terminology you would consider ripe for criticism.
I feel like you’re misinterpreting my point. I’m saying that optics matter in social movements. You can’t expect society to go out of its to understand the nuances behind your slogans and terms, you have to do the work to find slogans that conveys your messages in ways that society understands and accepts. This is a vital part of activism, and small changes can yield in big results. If the goal is to advance the cause then this should be a no brainer move.
You make the argument that a change in optics implies erasing the original message or adopting or that anybody criticizing bad optics is engaging in bad faith. However both of these things are not true. Let’s take the Black Lives Matter slogan that you brought up as an exmaple. You seem to believe that there’s a dichotomy in slogans to choose from, either it’s “Black Lives Matter” or “All Lives Matter”. However, this dichotomy is false. There’s obviously many more options.
One of the primary criticisms of the BLM slogan is that it’s too vague on it’s meaning. A lot of people, regardless of your opinions on their motivations, believe that this slogan implies that other people’s lives matter less or that black lives matter more. To you it may seem obvious what it means, but the people who bring up this criticism do have a valid point as evidence by all the opposition to it. If your movement is getting nonstop criticism about the language it uses, then that’s a strong indicator that there’s an inconsistency in the movement’s optics.
Therefore it would be wise to examine where those might be and make adjustments. In this case, the BLM movement doesn’t need to adopt the All Lives Matter slogan because that’s also flawed for all the reasons you’ve brought up, but they could do something simple like “Black Lives Matter Too”. That’s all it takes to clarify the meaning and kill the criticisms about intent behind the term. Will this stop racists from being racist? No, but it does give solidify the movement’s position. The truth is that there a lot of people who associate or disassociate with movements over things like this, and their support could be the difference between real change and no change. The idea here isn’t to win over the racists, but the people who are hesitant to support a movement even if they agree with the cause.
It’s something that’s simple yet effective. If a movements cares more about the preservation of bad optics over the advancement of its cause, then where does its values lie? Keep in mind, movements that are too stubborn and rigid to adapt will be fizzle out and be left behind in favor of ones that do.
No it’s not. The people who make these sort of pathetic criticisms will find a new reason to not support women.
The reason we have individual words is that we can apply labels to issues that only affect certain people.
The criticisms remain valid regardless of your opinion on the people who say them. Ultimately optics do matter in any social movement, and quite a lot. If feminism wants to be perceived as an egalitarian movement, then it has to brand itself as such. It’s slogans, terminology, mentality, and the behavior of its supporters have to adjust to reflect a true adaptation of this principle. Otherwise, it’ll remain a movement that will be perceived as one that is solely focused on the advancement of women in a society irrespective of the status of men.
The current position is just inconsistent from an optics perspective. Either feminism is synonymous with egalitarianism and it adapts to reflect that or it remains as it is and gets viewed as a separate movement. I’m of the opinion that the direction the movement should take should depend on the society its in, but I digress. The point is you can’t have it both ways. As long as that inconsistency exists, it will always be pointed and criticized by people.
I been thinking about this kind thing recently. In Brazil (To be more precise in the state of Bahia which I live) there has been a spike on femicide which bugged me because of the term, "What is the difference between this and homicide of women and the answer i found is: Femicide is the killing of women BECAUSE they are women. It’s an specification of the crime. So I think the same thing can be said about feminism: It is a fight for equality of gender focused ONLY in women. It does not make it less than true equality, but the terminology make it become an idea/movement, just like socialism and capitalism (Cold war for example).
References (Translation is available with your right click)
https://www.ba.gov.br/comunicacao/noticias/2025-03/366428/duas-cada-cinco-mulheres-baianas-mortas-de-forma-violenta-sao-vitimas-de https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/artigos/distincao-juridica-e-social-entre-femicidio-e-feminicidio-no-direito-brasileiro/3820107194
I mean your line of thought is fine if you accept the premise that feminism is a movement focused primarily on the advancement of women in a society regardless of the status of men, even if the goal is equality. However, the thing that’s being criticized here is the people who claim that feminism is synonymous with egalitarianism. As in feminism is also a movement for the advancement of men. However, this is an inconsistent position because the language and messaging used by the movement contradicts this notion.